Re: [CODE4LIB] Open, public standards v. pay per view standards and usage
That might not be the best analogy. The most commonly-cited reason for Beta losing out to VHS seems to be the initial limitation of Beta to 1-hour tapes, which wasn't enough to record a movie from TV, or to play back a rented one without switching tapes partway through. By the time Beta increased its tape length, VHS had basically caught up from a quality standpoint, and its market share had reached the tipping point anyway. I'm not entirely sure that TCP/IP and the other IETF RFCs became established because of restrictions placed on OSI. I was under the impression that OSI was also insanely complicated and that the IETF standards were much cheaper to implement from a technical standpoint. And, from a product standpoint, in the mid-90s, there were still a lot of bets being placed on closed online services like AOL, MSN, and Compuserve. -William David Fiander wrote: Walter, Well the obvious commercial example, sort of is that old favourite: Beta (for which Sony charged a license fee and controlled who could produce media) vs VHS (for which there was either no fee or a much lower one, and not oversight of media producers). On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Andrew Hankinsonandrew.hankin...@gmail.com wrote: Have a look at the ongoing battles between MPEG4 and Ogg for the browser video space. I don't know of your second criteria for b), however - not many people are using Ogg (yet) http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/07/06/ogg-theora-h-264-and-the-html-5-browser-squabble/ http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/decoding-the-html-5-video-codec-debate.ars -Andrew On 13-Jul-09, at 12:22 PM, Walter Lewis wrote: Are there any blindingly obvious examples of instances where a) a standards group produced a standard published by a body which charged for access to it and b) a alternative standards groups produced a competing standard that was openly accessible and the work of group a) was rendered totally irrelevant because most non-commercial work ignored it in favour of b). My instinct is to quote the battle between OSI (ISO) and TCP/IP (IETF RFCs). Does that strike others as appropriate? Any examples closer to the library world? Walter Lewis
Re: [CODE4LIB] Open, public standards v. pay per view standards and usage
William Wueppelmann wrote: [snip] I'm not entirely sure that TCP/IP and the other IETF RFCs became established because of restrictions placed on OSI. I was under the impression that OSI was also insanely complicated and that the IETF standards were much cheaper to implement from a technical standpoint. And, from a product standpoint, in the mid-90s, there were still a lot of bets being placed on closed online services like AOL, MSN, and Compuserve. Not to mention the book I once saw on MS Blackbird ... (MSN .0001?) which, thankfully, was abandonned before leaving the nest. Any examples closer to the library world? What I had been hoping for were data standards more in the library space. I've read ANSI's Z.39.19 which deals with Monolingual thesauri. (a copy lives here: http://www.slis.kent.edu/~mzeng/Z3919/8Z3919toc.htm) Near as I can tell the parallel multi-lingual standard is ISO 5964 and is available at http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?ics1=01ics2=140ics3=20csnumber=12159 for a fee of 168 Swiss francs (CHF) or ~$155USD I pay attention to the one, and never expect to read the other. This past week I was on the edge of another discussion of standards with associated controlled vocabularies (in the K-12 domain) where a criticism was raised that it wasn't Creative Commons with an Attribution requirement, else how could you teach it? That got me thinking about whether we shouldn't have already learned that lesson because the 'net largely runs on public RFCs, but wondered if I wasn't missing other examples inside our domain. Walter
Re: [CODE4LIB] XForms editor for EAD
The closest thing I'm aware of is the EAD Toolkit. http://www.cdlib.org/inside/projects/oac/toolkit/ ewg4x...@gmail.com 07/06/09 05:33AM Hi, I'm curious as to whether anyone on the list has worked on or knows about any web-based XForms application for creating and editing EAD Finding Aids. I would like to add an editor into an administrative interface for an open source EAD/VRA Core application I am developing. I'm aware of a mods editor that runs under the Orbeon tomcat application, but the only XForms editor I have seen for EAD is one dated 2006 that runs in proprietary Windows software--not in a web form. Thanks, Ethan Gruber University of Virginia Library
[CODE4LIB] Metadata Registries Functional Requirements Survey
Dear All, Apologies for the cross-posting. The following survey is being distributed on behalf of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Registries Task Group, the Joint Information Steering Committe (JISC) and UKOLN. The goal of the survey is to collect information from Metadata Registry managers, developers and end-users to determine current practice in registry development, collect information on registry content, and assess the interoperability needs of the registry community. The survey should take less than 20 minutes, and we hope that you will complete it. The survey will remain open through Friday, July 31. The link to the survey is: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=UBi6N6R2r_2fdd9f5CSgPkkw_3d_3d Thank you for your time. Sincerely, -Corey A Harper -- Corey A Harper Metadata Services Librarian New York University Libraries 20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10003-7112 212.998.2479 corey.har...@nyu.edu
Re: [CODE4LIB] Open, public standards v. pay per view standards and usage
Well, it's not a great example, because I don't have a 'counter-example', but I think it will remain to be seen if ISO 20775 goes anywhere if it, too, remains behind a pay wall. If an open spec were to come along that allowed the transfer of holdings and availability information that was decent and simple it would basically render ISO 20775 irrelevant (if the pay wall doesn't already). RDA, I think, might also suffer from this problem. -Ross. On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Walter Lewislew...@hhpl.on.ca wrote: William Wueppelmann wrote: [snip] I'm not entirely sure that TCP/IP and the other IETF RFCs became established because of restrictions placed on OSI. I was under the impression that OSI was also insanely complicated and that the IETF standards were much cheaper to implement from a technical standpoint. And, from a product standpoint, in the mid-90s, there were still a lot of bets being placed on closed online services like AOL, MSN, and Compuserve. Not to mention the book I once saw on MS Blackbird ... (MSN .0001?) which, thankfully, was abandonned before leaving the nest. Any examples closer to the library world? What I had been hoping for were data standards more in the library space. I've read ANSI's Z.39.19 which deals with Monolingual thesauri. (a copy lives here: http://www.slis.kent.edu/~mzeng/Z3919/8Z3919toc.htm) Near as I can tell the parallel multi-lingual standard is ISO 5964 and is available at http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?ics1=01ics2=140ics3=20csnumber=12159 for a fee of 168 Swiss francs (CHF) or ~$155USD I pay attention to the one, and never expect to read the other. This past week I was on the edge of another discussion of standards with associated controlled vocabularies (in the K-12 domain) where a criticism was raised that it wasn't Creative Commons with an Attribution requirement, else how could you teach it? That got me thinking about whether we shouldn't have already learned that lesson because the 'net largely runs on public RFCs, but wondered if I wasn't missing other examples inside our domain. Walter
